Reply With QuoteMate, doesn't matter how hard you hit the nail, you won't get it to penetrate the wall of idiocyOriginally Posted by Corrupt
Oh snap!Wait, the Swedes helped defeat Germany? by selling them Iron ore and allowing transit of forces?
I think the Swede was referring to United Kingdom's and Soviet's contribution too. Which sometimes get forgotten.
Mate, doesn't matter how hard you hit the nail, you won't get it to penetrate the wall of idiocy
Ok, so what if the Home Office has made a "mistake"? The UK isn't exactly missing out on anything but not letting him come over here. I really don't care one way or another whether he is let in (or not as it so happens) but what makes him so special that he absolutely must be let in?
But I need him to teach me to illegally defend myself from drunk muslim extremists because my Communist government won't.
Because if we dont, we've played into the hands of the ultra right.
Get some ME troublemaker who turns up on our shores asking for asylum and claiming persecution back home and we take him in. Cant get rid in some cases. This bloke gets turned down because HMG doesnt like his "message" ? The fact that he happens to be white and advocates "self defence" while said troublemakers arent is going to be noted by people who can and will vote, regardless of how a non event the rest of us think it is.
The difference is, he's not claiming asylum, nor is he facing torture back home if we refuse him entry. Unfortunately with many hate preachers etc we're almost required to shelter them because of various human rights agreements we're party to.
I'd hope that the majority of reasonable people can understand why we have problems shifting say Qatata, even if they're not very happy with the state of affairs. While playing into the hands of the extreme right isn't an ideal state of affairs, sometimes it's unavoidable.
Ultimately if it reaches a point where events like this are enough to garner significant support and a mandate to govern for any extremist party, both we as a nation and the mainstream political parties have ****ed up.
So we should let him in because some people aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference between claiming asylum and visiting the UK? Or is it just because he is white and (presumably) not Muslim? I remain totally unconvinced that he is so important that we absolutely must let him in in any case.
Ordinarily I'd be up in arms about this as much as the next guy, calling Corrupt all sorts of silly names and so on, but this Larkin guy appears to be a massive douchebag and a poser. Perhaps the Brits are onto something here after all.
Originally Posted by Corrupt
How many fvcking times. Sharia courts in the Uk DO NOT conflict with the laws of the land. Neither do Jewish courts, or any other sanctioned courts.
Mate, doesn't matter how hard you hit the nail, you won't get it to penetrate the wall of idiocy
Yeah right.I quick google search reveals a huge problem with Sharia law in UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...to-itself.html
Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who has lived in the area for 30 years, says: “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat. Posters at bus stops of swimwear models are spray-painted over with a burka. The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...ligious-courts
An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.
The ridiculousness of the Home Office in this case(in my eyes) is that send's a message:self defense instructors not allowed if they teach you how to defend yourself(even kill) determined robber,rapist or murder.But it is ok to have Sharia law
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...lante-violence
Britain’s Home Office said in a statement Wednesday that it had given Larkin an exclusion order to stop him coming to the country. It said it fears the type of self-defence training promoted by Larkin could encourage “excessive violence and vigilante-type behaviour.”
I couldn't stop laughing reading the paragraph above.UK has so many violent football hooligans,that they might teach Larkin one or two things
In the UK, self defence classes and self defence (including lethal force) are legal/permitted/allowed/given the green light/sanctioned. Are you being deliberately obtuse?The ridiculousness of the Home Office in this case(in my eyes) is that send's a message:self defense instructors not allowed if they teach you how to defend yourself(even kill) determined robber,rapist or murder.But it is ok to have Sharia law
Similarly Sharia law is only permitted for civil and business disputes, when all parties agree to use it as a third party arbiter.
No amount of googling news stories or saying you visited London and saw some drunks changes the fact that you know fvck all about our country compared to people who actually live here. For example some ****s, one of who had an awful ginger beard, tried to enforce Sharia law in areas of London, then were prosecuted for it.
With that said, you're to continue thinking that this country is entirely populated by violent drunk Muslims who prey on the terrified and never visit again. I shall continue to go about my daily business and make a bacon sarnie, unworried that the Infidel Indterdiction Squad will come through front door with flashbangs and arrest me for eating a pig.
FFS, one is called graffiti, the as to the councillor, I'd say pop to Tescos
@corrupt - we are dealing with the politics of perception here. The argument used by HMG is that of the public good . How can we apply that argument to the likes of Captain Hook ? Now tell me how this will not be seen by some as evidence of a curious blindness on the part of HMG ?
A quick Google search reveals that you're as thick as two short planks.Originally Posted by Corrupt
How many fvcking times. Sharia courts in the Uk DO NOT conflict with the laws of the land. Neither do Jewish courts, or any other sanctioned courts.
Mate, doesn't matter how hard you hit the nail, you won't get it to penetrate the wall of idiocy
Yeah right.I quick google search reveals a huge problem with Sharia law in UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...to-itself.html
Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who has lived in the area for 30 years, says: “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat. Posters at bus stops of swimwear models are spray-painted over with a burka. The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...ligious-courts
An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.
The ridiculousness of the Home Office in this case(in my eyes) is that send's a message:self defense instructors not allowed if they teach you how to defend yourself(even kill) determined robber,rapist or murder.But it is ok to have Sharia law
Alan Craig is a f*ckwit of fantastical proportions, this guy fought to have the UK arms industry showcase cancelled and wanted a Bishop to resign after the Bishop went on a night out with his mates. He is a joyless moron.
Posting Permissions
